Bava Metzia 107

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 112017
 

Does one need to keep to his commitment of what he will grow in the field he is cultivating?  Does it depend on what the change is (from which item to another – if it is better for the field in the long term or worse?)  A number of random halachot or advice are brought regarding trees near the border between 2 neighbors, is it best to have a field close to the city, what diseases are considered the worst, what one can do to avoid certain diseases, how important breakfast is and what one should eat for breakfast.  In the context of these, the idea of the evil eye is brought up and how destructive it can be, which in other words could be a way of talking about the dangers of jealousy/envy.  The last issue discussed has to do with measuring and making sure to leave 4 cubits of space bare in certain areas to allow access to people and in some cases other measurements, depending on what space is being discussed.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 106

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 102017
 

One who cultivates another’s land (chocher in Hebrew) and a plague or windblast ruins the crops – in which scenarios can he pay less than the agreed upon amount.  Various theological arguments are raised here which mostly lead to protecting the landowner.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 105

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 092017
 

Rava raises issues regarding a heiter iska that allows one to invest money for someone else in a way that they can share the profits.  Based on the way it is set up, that a loss will be split 50/50 but gains 2/3 to the borrower (the one investing the money) and 1/3 to the investor, if one takes an investment and splits it into 2 documents, there can be a loss for the investor if one yields profit sand the other a loss.  And if 2 deals are put into one document, it can cause a loss for the borrower.  Various other investment issues are discussed.  If a sharecropper who pays a fixed amount to the owner decides not to weed the field, this is not allowed for various reasons cited in the mishna and gemara.  If one sharecrops for percentages and there is very little yield, he is not responsible.  The mishna and gemara discuss what the amount is.  From here the gemara digresses to various halachot regarding measurements in other areas of halacha including ritual impurity.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 104

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 082017
 

Laws regarding sharecroppers are discussed.  What if he agrees to work an irrigated field and the river dries up?  Can he deduct soemthing from what he owes the owner?  If he agrees to sharecrop for a percentage of the yield and decides not to work the land at all, he needs the landowner according to the agreed upon percentage calculated at what the field should have yielded.  Rabbi Meir says this is common law that became halacha (doresh lashon hedyot).  There are various interpretations about what this means and there are various cases listed in which this principle is used.  The concept of asmachta is raised in a case where a sharecropper said “if I don’t work the land I will pay you 1,000 zuzim.”  There is a disagreement about whether this is valid or not.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 102

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 062017
 

What items in the house are the responsibility of the landlord to fix and what are the responsibility of the renter?  Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house.  This is supported by Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina’s view that a courtyard can acquire items even without the knowledge of the owner.   Various tannaitic sources are brought to question Rabbi Yossi’s opinion.  If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra?  It depends on whther the agreement was for month or for the year.  If the agreement mentioned both months and years, there is a debate about what the halacha will be.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 101

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 052017
 

Cases are brought where a tree belongs to one person and the land to another.  In what situations do we assume the fruits belong exclusively to one of them and in which cases do we split them 50/50?  If a tree got uprooted by a river and placed in someone else’s field, can the owner take it back?  What if someone planted a tree in someone’s property without the owner’s knowledge?  Does he receive payment for it and how much?  Would the law be the same for a house that one built in someone else’s ruin without the property owner’s knowledge?  How much notice does a landlord need to give the renter that he wants him to move out?  The amount depends on what season he rented it for (depends on supply), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence and what type of store it was.  What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 100

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 042017
 

If one buys (or trades) animals or slaves and the animal has offspring or he sold 2 animals or slaves – one small and one large and it’s unclear whether it was before the sale or after the sale or he sold 2 animals or slaves – one small and one large, various cases are brought (each one gives clear claims, each one says maybe it was born before/after the sale, or one is clear and the other not) and the halacha is determined for each case.  The gemara concludes that the mishna is in according with Sumchus who holds that money is doubt is split without swearing.  However, the gemara has further questions on that and to resolve those questions, suggests 4 possible readings of the mishna.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 99

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 032017
 

At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage?  At what stage can the owner change his mind and take back the borrowed item?  Cases regarding paying damages when there is discrepancy of price rates are raised.  Shmuel holds that a robber would pay the higher rate if it is hekdesh (consecrated items) and a lower rate if it is to a regular person.  The gemara questions Shmuel based on a different place where he equates hekdesh and non hekdesh.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 98

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 022017
 

Study Guide Bava Metzia 98

The mishna’s cases about combined rental/borrowing situations are explained in 3 different ways according to varying opinions.  Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item “with the owner” and then before the rental time is up, he decides to rent it without the owner,  Does the exemption of “with the owner” apply because the agreement is just continued from the original borrow or is it viewed as a new agreement?  What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 97

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 012017
 

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used but it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible.  Possible exceptions to this rule are brought.  Various other cases are brought to further define the exception of the owner being “with” the shomer.   The mishna describes bases where an animal is rented for a period of time and borrowed for a period of time or two animal are being dealt with – one rented and one borrowed.  The animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was rented at the time or borrowed.  Depending on what each side claims (are they sure in their claim or unsure), the halacha changes.  This is based on the principal that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim.  The gemara says that the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan who hold that one is exempt even if he has an unsure claim.  The gemara resolves the difficulty by claiming that the mishna is referring to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear and since he can’t (as he is unsure), he is obligated.  But if he didn’t have to swear, he would be exempt.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries